Literature DB >> 27503908

Can Neurological Biomarkers of Brain Impairment Be Used to Predict Poststroke Motor Recovery? A Systematic Review.

Bokkyu Kim1, Carolee Winstein2.   

Abstract

Background There is growing interest to establish recovery biomarkers, especially neurological biomarkers, in order to develop new therapies and prediction models for the promotion of stroke rehabilitation and recovery. However, there is no consensus among the neurorehabilitation community about which biomarker(s) have the highest predictive value for motor recovery. Objective To review the evidence and determine which neurological biomarker(s) meet the high evidence quality criteria for use in predicting motor recovery. Methods We searched databases for prognostic neuroimaging/neurophysiological studies. Methodological quality of each study was assessed using a previously employed comprehensive 15-item rating system. Furthermore, we used the GRADE approach and ranked the overall evidence quality for each category of neurologic biomarker. Results Seventy-one articles met our inclusion criteria; 5 categories of neurologic biomarkers were identified: diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), conventional structural MRI (sMRI), and a combination of these biomarkers. Most studies were conducted with individuals after ischemic stroke in the acute and/or subacute stage (~70%). Less than one-third of the studies (21/71) were assessed with satisfactory methodological quality (80% or more of total quality score). Conventional structural MRI and the combination biomarker categories ranked "high" in overall evidence quality. Conclusions There were 3 prevalent methodological limitations: (a) lack of cross-validation, (b) lack of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for motor outcomes, and (c) small sample size. More high-quality studies are needed to establish which neurological biomarkers are the best predictors of motor recovery after stroke. Finally, the quarter-century old methodological quality tool used here should be updated by inclusion of more contemporary methods and statistical approaches.
© The Author(s) 2016.

Entities:  

Keywords:  diffusion tensor imaging; magnetic resonance imaging; motor recovery; neurological biomarkers; prognosis; stroke; transcranial magnetic stimulation

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27503908     DOI: 10.1177/1545968316662708

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair        ISSN: 1545-9683            Impact factor:   3.919


  56 in total

1.  Poststroke Impairment and Recovery Are Predicted by Task-Specific Regionalization of Injury.

Authors:  Matthew S Jeffers; Boris Touvykine; Allyson Ripley; Gillian Lahey; Anthony Carter; Numa Dancause; Dale Corbett
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 2.  Diffusion tensor imaging as a prognostic biomarker for motor recovery and rehabilitation after stroke.

Authors:  Josep Puig; Gerard Blasco; Gottfried Schlaug; Cathy M Stinear; Pepus Daunis-I-Estadella; Carles Biarnes; Jaume Figueras; Joaquín Serena; Maria Hernández-Pérez; Angel Alberich-Bayarri; Mar Castellanos; David S Liebeskind; Andrew M Demchuk; Bijoy K Menon; Götz Thomalla; Kambiz Nael; Max Wintermark; Salvador Pedraza
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2017-03-14       Impact factor: 2.804

3.  Free-water and free-water corrected fractional anisotropy in primary and premotor corticospinal tracts in chronic stroke.

Authors:  Derek B Archer; Carolynn Patten; Stephen A Coombes
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2017-06-07       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 4.  Research in the Acute Rehabilitation Setting: a Bridge Too Far?

Authors:  Preeti Raghavan
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 5.081

5.  Proprioception and motor performance after stroke: An examination of diffusion properties in sensory and motor pathways.

Authors:  Sonja E Findlater; Erin L Mazerolle; G Bruce Pike; Sean P Dukelow
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2019-03-19       Impact factor: 5.038

6.  A comparison of seven different DTI-derived estimates of corticospinal tract structural characteristics in chronic stroke survivors.

Authors:  Bokkyu Kim; Beth E Fisher; Nicolas Schweighofer; Richard M Leahy; Justin P Haldar; Soyoung Choi; Dorsa B Kay; James Gordon; Carolee J Winstein
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2018-04-21       Impact factor: 2.390

7.  Biomarkers of stroke recovery: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable.

Authors:  Lara A Boyd; Kathryn S Hayward; Nick S Ward; Cathy M Stinear; Charlotte Rosso; Rebecca J Fisher; Alexandre R Carter; Alex P Leff; David A Copland; Leeanne M Carey; Leonardo G Cohen; D Michele Basso; Jane M Maguire; Steven C Cramer
Journal:  Int J Stroke       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 5.266

8.  Corticospinal Tract Injury Estimated From Acute Stroke Imaging Predicts Upper Extremity Motor Recovery After Stroke.

Authors:  David J Lin; Alison M Cloutier; Kimberly S Erler; Jessica M Cassidy; Samuel B Snider; Jessica Ranford; Kristin Parlman; Fabio Giatsidis; James F Burke; Lee H Schwamm; Seth P Finklestein; Leigh R Hochberg; Steven C Cramer
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2019-10-25       Impact factor: 7.914

9.  Neuroimaging Identifies Patients Most Likely to Respond to a Restorative Stroke Therapy.

Authors:  Jessica M Cassidy; George Tran; Erin B Quinlan; Steven C Cramer
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 7.914

10.  The Serum BDNF Level Offers Minimum Predictive Value for Motor Function Recovery After Stroke.

Authors:  Wenshu Luo; Tao Liu; Shanshan Li; Hongmei Wen; Fenghua Zhou; Ross Zafonte; Xun Luo; Minghzu Xu; Randie Black-Schaffer; Lisa J Wood; Yulong Wang; Qing Mei Wang
Journal:  Transl Stroke Res       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 6.829

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.